DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D800

DxOMark has tested 61 lenses on the Nikon D800, and drawn some conclusions about the results. So far it has published two sections of an eventual four-part article: the first discusses how much benefit the D800's 36MP sensor really offers over the 24MP chips in cameras such as the D3X and D600, while the second looks at which lenses in the 50-100mm range come out with the best DxOMark scores. Further parts later this month will look at telephoto and wideangle lenses.

I'm still using AFD and AIS types of 50/1.4 though they are not as good as EF50/1.4. I casually tested several copies of AF-S ones and the result was not promsing. I look forward to seeing AF-S50/1.2G hope it will be better than Canon L.

Someone actually asked if they should sell all their Canon gear and buy Nikon gear. Well, my answer is yes you should if you want the very best possible camera for Landscapes or Studio work. Otherwise, you should keep your brand because it's about the same for everything else. Understand that the D800 really only shows that massive resolution when its on a tripod and hands and mirror are off. If your shooting handheld, then that resolution gap is gone.

But the real question is "Why is it so important to have the best?"Everything is replaced with "new & improved", no matter what you buy.I think the Canon crowd would be better served to just let stuff like this bring about market competition that will generate even better Canon cameras in the future. Competition is good!!! Even for Canon.

DXO is meaningless. I use Canon, Nikon and Pentax cameras. Can't accuse me of bias.

If you shoot landscapes, you generally want maximum depth of field. If you stop the lens down to f/11, then diffraction limits resolution to 16 megapixels, no matter how many pixels there is on the full frame sensor. Things are a little better at f/8, because diffraction limits resolution to 29 mp. For the D800 to show higher resolution than the Canon full frame, you need to be a landscape photographer who shoots at f/8 full time. If you do that, part of your scene may look out of focus. Therefore, in real life, there really isn't any difference between the Canon and the Nikon even if you are a landscape photographer full time.

Canon and Nikon ARE NOT owned by the same companies...Would people please stop affirming random stuff without fact to back it up?There may be shareholders who own both Nikon and Canon shares, as they are publicly listed entities, and thus investors investing in imaging companies may want to avoid putting all their eggs in the same basket, but that's all. If you want a proof, contact Ernst and Young Global Limited, and ask for the annual returns of Canon, as an investor performing a KYC due diligence. Same for Nikon with Deloitte Touche LLC. Information in trade registries is not public, which means you have to pay a fee to access it, and you may NOT reproduce or diffuse the documents publicly, but at least you will know which are the "controlling parent companies".Also, even if they were both owned to a certain percentage by a same and single entity, Canon and Nikon are huge publicly listed companies, so they are pretty much autonomous, the weight of a single investor is limited.

think 70-200/2.8VR2 at 200mm can beat the new Canon one at open and it can even beat Canon prime 200/2.8L2. the tele end is probably the only place Nikkor can score but that's mostly used focal length by many.

Some Zeiss glass is spectacular, some really is Cosina's standard...Sorry to burst your bubble, but Zeiss ain't what it used to be.Designed is Germany is not made in Germany (thank God it's cheap to make up for it!)S.

@doctorbza : your answer is really very funny (architecture/birds) and interesting ! I've since a long time the curious impression that DxO stress mainly on lens corrections, details, resolution and other physical wonderful properties, which are without any doubt, important but not often relevant for the overall real photo quality.. as long as you look at all aspects of a "good photography" ? Many people are now looking at the very best performance of their equipment, but thus sometimes (?) totally forget other important photography factors. This is of course only a personal standpoint !

Well, only the 80 MPix IQ180 back actually beats D800 in real resolution, and the new version costs $50000. Do not forget that with MF backs also the real image quality (in MPix) is much less than the "advertised" one, also much depending on the lens.

Wide angles are always the worst performers, 85mm and longer lenses are the sharpest.

I use a D800E and also Medium format.. medium format (providing you use good glass) is still better.. the D800E has closed the gap but there is still a difference... for eg: hasselblad is much better for portraits ,rendering more detail and beautiful skin tones...with MF back's you can also use tech cam's with Rodenstock HR glass.. which blows nikkor glass away..

I like DPReview's use of DxO research a whole lot better now that DPR has stopped reporting DxOmark Score results as showing "Best" lenses. A ranking of DxOmark Score results does not give you a list of the best lenses overall, and the graph on DxO's site labelled "The Highest IQ" is just plain wrong.The DxOmark Score is a low-light test at increasingly higher iso settings. So those three 50mm lenses are all best at f/1.4 are they? It may as well be a "best lenses to use wide open on a D800" ranking.They should tabulate their "mid-light score" results (much harder to find) – it would give a much more realistic impression of "Best" for a lens comparison.

Really much a-do about nothing much... almost all modern DLSRs and lenses are going to be very good for 95 to 99% of users' intended applications. This just confirms that.

It often strikes me how we tend to over-scrutinise and be too-anxious about the technical brilliance (or otherwise) of modern cameras and lenses. When I come across old photos or large prints taken 100 years ago with glass plate cameras and bellows-mounted lenses, I find myself in-awe & inspired with the scene or content and appreciating the image itself. I do not even think of the sharpness, etc. of the lens or camera. Many of the most famous photos of the last 200 years are nowhere near the sharpness etc of modern cameras, or cameras from the '60s or '70s, or even P&S cams.

I sure hope in 50 or 100 years from now, nobody cares if the images were taken with a Nikon or Canon, because a great image is a great image.

No one usually asks what camera took a great image, they ask "Wow! Who took that photo?"

Fibonacci1618:You are so right about with your direction on this. I can purchase a Lamborghini, but with mediocre & normal skills, I still can't beat that skilled dirver in a 6 cyc Mustang automatic. Skills do shine through equipment.

What credibility has this Company ( DXO ) got ? i.e. Are Nikkors really that better than Canon EF lenses as demonstrated in their "TEST" results ?Should I be selling my digital Canon digital camerasand lenses and buying Nikon/Nikkor equipment ?Are they( DXO ) independent with no financial benefit received for their results and are there any other non commercial "TESTING "organisations that perform and publish their results ?

DxO tests lens/camera combinations. Why would it surprise anybody that a 36 MPix body and a good lens beats 24 Mpix with great lens? Lensrentals came to the same conclusion when comparing D800 and 5DIII with 24-70mm f:2.8 zooms. The new canon zoom is better, but still D800 with the Nikon zoom was sharper.

If Canon comes out with 30 MPix + body, or even 40+, the results are given a new shake again. Just wait, and then some Nikon fanboy can claim the results questionable...

Actually Dxo is credible. They use a very well thought out testprocess.

You are trained to believe opinionated journalist reviews and are shocked if somebody produces raw numbers and tells you with the numbers that C is worse than N. Those mags are the ones that push products on mfg. behalf. That is why you own a Canon and EF lens and get saturated and less than sharp pics out of it.

It is long known that C products have 10-30% less resolving power than N lenses which are just 10% below theoretical max. resolving power.

D600 and D800(e) and the new prime 50mm lenses are really gamechangers. Combined they are actually better than many Mediumformat cams/backs/lenses that have high pixel counts but suffer from not so great sensors and some terrible lenses. The D-cams and the new FX-lenses are 5 years ahead of Canon.

@wakaba: in science, if you want to be credible, you will have to reference all your statements. Just saying "The D-cams and the new FX-lenses are 5 years ahead of Canon" is not quite enough, because I might say "Nikon has a Sony sensor that is stronger in resolution, BUT, many features on the Nikon(s) are crap -e.g. ergonomics- when compared with Canon and, Nikon lenses are less sharp than the Canon counterparts (especially pro lenses, Nikon is 10 years behind Canon)"... I hope you will understand my point. Cheers! :)

don't do it , I did it a year ago, went almost 100 percent Nikon with the D800E from 3 system kit.the D800E at base ISO is great. but it can be very difficult to fully optimize its IQ above ISO200.the D800E is quite noisy even at ISO 200 compared to my d600 or the 6D. from ISO400 almost all shots with it require re-sampling in CS6 or LR4, it is quite annoying to re-sample all shots to keep luma noise in check.

Nikon primes are simply not great , the 135DC is dated, the 105VR micro is just ok lens, a bit worse than the similar Canon 100L.if you buy a D800E , you need a set of Zeiss primes but it is almost impossible to MF on the D800 due to the poor(est) LV mode of that cam.so on paper and in lab , the D800E is a great camera but it is not worth selling all your Canon lenses for it.so if you go dual system , I 'd encourage it but switching to Nikon from Canon or Sony is not worth the effort , buy a body for your already existing glass.

I don`t shoot above 400. I hardly ever go above 100. I really think hard before I take my cam out nowadays. Got to be good - or else.

I only use prime 50mm1,4 and 180mm 2.8. nowadays. Its like a big V8. Lots of power low down, rev it and it gets harsh. You probably never used or even heard of the Nikon 180mm - that one is really, really good. Sharp and nice focus plane.

LV is a nonissue. Sucks battery and the prism is much better. Zeiss is just not as good as my preferred two lenses, lack AF. LV and MF is a stupid thing to do - use prism. Wideangle lenses are a lot worse than "narrow" angle 50 and 85mm. No point in comparing lenses in this segment and no point to measure variolenses.That is what dxo says.

Ergonomics on Nikon are ok. But then again I use that stuff for 30 years.Do I like my current D600? Yes, and I also liked my 601, D50, 3100 etc.Would I get a D800e? No. I want a D1000e with an even bigger sensor and square images and a faster DSP.

@wakaba I use both Canon L glass and nikon G glass.. I have the 24mm 1.4G,35mm 1.4g ,50mm 1.4G and both 85mm G lenses.. canon make lenses that are easily as good as Nikon.. the 17 & 24 TSE's,the 85mm L ,the 200F2 ,24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2 are all excellent,and canon's latest generation of super tele's are amazing.. I use a D800E and D4 from nikon and love them both.. and BTW and the best 35mm is neither nikon or canon... it's sigma......I just like a balanced view...

I thank you for you thoughts - I was really shattered to see how good Nikon is and using Canon for digital and previously using Nikon film equipment (and still do ! ) I wondered about the crediabilty of DXO and was rather hoping that they didn't have any !

@scorpius:Lensmeasurments say otherwise: 1400lpi for C and 2000lpi for N 50mmIt is not about a balanced view, try fact based view. Hard numbers only, please. What they also say is variolenses suck. So no - you did not read nor understand what Dx0 measured and what they say and your choice of lenses apart from the new N50 and N85 suck. And a 4000$ supertele from Canon is ok but my 900$ N180mm beats it. Simple physics.

@darkshift: Those lenses are fun to use, they are made to distort. If that is your thing - great. But you will not get meaningful lpi out of them. I got rid of my "old" lenses half a year ago - only the 50mm and the 180mm remained. The others required too much image postprocessing and still fell short of those two lenses. Fact is: Variolenses and specialty lenses are done in. Imagequality is beyond the physics that these concepts can deliver. Same mit M43, APS-C bodies. Done, Gone.

@darkshift: Canon has better T/S lenses than Nikon, it is a well known fact. What people asking for a 17mm Nikon T/S do not realize is the fact that Nikon has a big problem with their lens mount what comes to T/S lenses: The flange opening is too small. There simply is no way to make a T/S lens with large shift movements without getting light cutoff from the flange. Canon has larger flange aperture; lot of room for lens movements. Simple geometry. If somebody really needs WA T/S, get a Canon, it is that simple. Canon 17mm T/S is truly awesome, and I can say that as a Nikon shooter. Cameras are tools and technology, not religion.

I only wonder about the comment that a ten percent increase in resolution is worth investing in a new camera system that will require spending even more more money to upgrade existing lenses to really extract the potential of the sensor? Sigma is addressing the newer super high generation sensors with new lens offerings like the 35mm f1.4 for APC cameras and the soon to be released 30mm f 1.4 for full frame cameras in their " Art" series as well as major upgrades to their other lens lines. Competition is great for photographers. Maybe these tests will prompt the manufacturers to really push the lens technology to take full advantage of these higher resolution sensors. I just wonder how much further optical technology can be pushed to match these super high resolution sensors. Where is the limit?

''Sigma is addressing the newer super high generation sensors with new lens offerings like the 35mm f1.4 for APC cameras and the soon to be released 30mm f 1.4 for full frame cameras in their " Art" series as well as major upgrades to their other lens lines.''

I think you've got that the wrong way round, at least I hope you have. I just ordered the new Sigma 35f1.4 and my guy in Saigon knows I've got a 5DM2 and will soon be purchasing the ''3''.

The DXO score apparently uses centre resolution only, which explains why the Sigma 50 and the Samyang 85 have DXO scores that are higher than better lenses. Mostly you can't see the difference between the resolution of different lenses in the centre, but you sure can in the corners! Of course, the corners don't matter for portraits, but neither does the centre.

DXO does lab tests. Reality shooting is a different story. Canon and Nikon both are they strength in some area and they weakness in others. I own both a 5D Mk3 and a D800; I can tell you they both are professional tools which in the right hands can produce brilliant results. I don't think photography is based only on the quality of your lens so really those results are just indicative.I think it's pointless to argue which system is best, lenses produced these days have extraordinary resolving power and really it's all about getting the best lens camera combination for the job.

DXO need to proof read their articles..quite a few mistakes and confusing statements ...take a look at the comparison between the 24-70 Nikon and the sigma...it states that the sigma beats the Nikon in sharpness..yet the results don't show that..plus it goes onto point out that the sigma has a high CHr score which lets it down..but it doesn't point out the Nikon lens did worse ...quite a poor review and makes me question the results if such mistakes are made in other areas ...Ive never thought my Nikon 24-70 was that bad in CHR

Interesting to note that say a 28-300 Nikkor ultra zoomlens on a D800 is able to keep up with/beat a 28mm F2.8 *prime* on a D3S in terms of final image resolution. Simply because of the extra pixels making more out of "average" lenses too.

So much for the theory that 36MP only give benefit with a handful of top end lenses.

Agree. I have several older lenses that works very well with the D800. Among those the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 D. Even the old 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 D is capable of producing very nice images with the D800. The pro lenses are of course better, but not as much as you would think considering the huge price difference.

Why do I keep seeing ridiculous comments like "Nikon has no control over their sensors". Everyone knows the D800 sensor was manufactured by Sony. Can anyone reasonably assume that Nikon was not involved in the DESIGN of the sensor? Sony can make sensors at lower cost than Nikon due to economies of scale, but the sensor DESIGN is definitely Nikon's - that is what is important to know.

Or was it? First it's an Exmor design (Sony's trademark), second, it's the exact same architecture as the 16MP APS-C sensor (underlined by the equal performance *per unit area*). And the latter first debuted in... the Sony A55 and A580 before being used in the D7000.

the d800 is a sony design. sony does make nikon designed sensors like the ones in the d3200 and d4. but this is a sony. the reason sony is outperformed by nikon is that is not all sensor. it is also the hardware and software that does image processing witch nikon clearly has a n edge on sony in

@InTheMyst:The A580 and D7000 did score the same even though Sony opted not to use the 14bit mode and uses its own filters (more selective CFA's for example). The RX1 scored within margin of error from the D600 too.

This is already very noticeable and visible with the D600. Noticed that 6 months ago. So I stick with the high quality 50mm FX Prime and the stellar 180mm FX primetele. Thanks dxo for confirming my suspicions.

Most likely variolensing is a thing of the past since many variables are constantly out of tune. A convenient but not really needed feature.

Sure, but the upgrade from D700 (which I've now had for over three years; I like that camera) to D800 is rather costly. It involves upgrading my laptop (RAM memory, speed retina grade screen) as well, and I'm just not up for that right now. I've got the glass though. The 1.4 24, 35 and 85 AFS's, the 2.0 28 and 50 Zeiss...

I am not a Zeiss fanboy but I will say these tests wont show the Benefits of a Zeiss lens..they have lovely color and contrast..C.A's are well controlled and they handle flare well.. they are good lenses...